Another great Onion article - Printable Version

Another great Onion article - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Another great Onion article (/thread-220375.html)

Pages: 1 2

- Motown Bronco - 11-06-2003 01:05 AM

This one is specifically for the libertarian-leaning crowd... :wave:

<a href='http://www.theonion.com/3943/news2.html' target='_blank'>Americans Demand Increased Governmental Protection From Selves</a>

Sadly, this satirical article doesn't sound much like parody. I wouldn't be surprised to find a similar article presented as reality in tomorrow's New York Times.

- KlutzDio I - 11-06-2003 02:33 PM

Motown Bronco Wrote:Sadly, this satirical article doesn't sound much like parody.

Yeah you got a point there. Frist, Cheney and Ashcroft might read this and start enacting legislation that we all must make responsible choices, or they'll lock you up!

I guarantee you the Republicans want government interference in social causes. They want government mandated religion, and government mandated drugs

- Rebel - 11-06-2003 02:50 PM

....and the Democrats want government control in our financial lives.

- KlutzDio I - 11-06-2003 03:10 PM

RebelKev Wrote:....and the Democrats want government control in our financial lives.

Don't assume that I am a Democrat because I'm critical of the Republicans. Actually, I hate the Democrats too. I'm more critical of the GOP because it's so easy to be. They make it easy for critics like me.

Make no bones about it, though. I was elated when Al Gore lost (and angry that he made such a mockery of the election process). I really thought at the time he was the worse of the two evils. But now I see that GW's unilateralism was really, really evil! After we start bombing France, I'm really going to regret my vote!
At least with Gore, I don't think we'd be killing folks indiscriminately!

- Rebel - 11-06-2003 03:14 PM

Unilateralism? England ring any bells? We have support from many countries. As far as defense, would you wait around for weasles to defend yourself? Sometimes you have to do what's best for your country. Not wait on other weasles that have financial ties to a country you are about to attack. Saddam could have prevented the battle; he chose not to. We enforced a UN resolution that they refused to act on and inadvertantly rendered themselves useless.

- KlutzDio I - 11-06-2003 03:27 PM

RebelKev Wrote:Unilateralism? England ring any bells? We have support from many countries. As far as defense, would you wait around for weasles to defend yourself? Sometimes you have to do what's best for your country. Not wait on other weasles that have financial ties to a country you are about to attack. Saddam could have prevented the battle; he chose not to. We enforced a UN resolution that they refused to act on and inadvertantly rendered themselves useless.

England a hand-full of other U.S. lapdogs? Is that what you are referring to.

But you know what, I'm glad we started killing the Iraqis because back in early March, everyday I wondered if I'd make it to work. I would worry about every curve in the road if there'd be Saddam and some Iraqis waiting for me. I'm sure glad we took care of that, I mean the thought of Iraqis on our soil!

Seriously dude, you are easily scared if you were scared of the Iraqis!

The other night, ABC News reported that there were backchannel attempts by the Baathist regime to allow the U.S. "full involvement" in disarmament. George Bush ingnored the attempt to prevent war and then turned around and had Rummy tell the public that "all avenues to prevent war had been exhausted."

Saddam had the U.S. military so far up his butt he couldn't do anything without us knowing first. We attacked his country for no reason, other than to test out some of our weaponry, also to solidify GW's reelection bid. I mean the guy is not going to win on domestic issues, so they needed to go to war because, traditionally, people vote for a President who kicks arse!

You have to admit that Saddam was not a threat. Not a threat until he was outsted from power, anyway.

- joebordenrebel - 11-06-2003 04:54 PM

RebelKev Wrote:Unilateralism? England ring any bells? We have support from many countries. As far as defense, would you wait around for weasles to defend yourself? Sometimes you have to do what's best for your country. Not wait on other weasles that have financial ties to a country you are about to attack. Saddam could have prevented the battle; he chose not to. We enforced a UN resolution that they refused to act on and inadvertantly rendered themselves useless.

Who you calling a weasel, Willis?

Be for real, doe, bro! England supported us, or just Tony Blair? And what was the other country? Was there another country? Are these the very same countries that are helping us "rebuild" Iraq? With friends like that, who needs enemies?

And, yeah, that whole UN bit makes me really laugh out loud, dude! Talk about a seletive enforcement of the rule of law! ::rolling on the floor::

UNITED NATIONS

- Motown Bronco - 11-06-2003 10:08 PM

KlutzDio I Wrote:I guarantee you the Republicans want government interference in social causes.

I agree. No argument here.

- KlutzDio I - 11-07-2003 12:46 AM

Motown Bronco Wrote:
KlutzDio I Wrote:I guarantee you the Republicans want government interference in social causes.
I agree. No argument here.

See! that is the big contradiction in the GOP ideology. They want to control our lives socially and spiritually, but the want business to be able to run roughshod over everyone else's rights.

If you really think about it, capitalism is a flawed economic system. The capitalist wants to make more, control more and put the smaller competition out of business. The call it survival of the fittest (business). But the whole system collapses upon itself at that point. Say business X sells a certain kind of washer that all manufactured products must have to operate. Business Y sells a similar washer but they aren't as big and don't have as much financial backing as does business X. Business X makes Y an offer they can't refuse, or simply take them over hostily. After that X takes up all the smaller businesses that buy the washers from them and sell the manufactured products. Soon, over years and years, business X owns a little bit of everything and they can set the value of their goods and services. At this point the system has broken down because business X is a monopoly and they own everything. At that point capitalism ceases to provide private, free ownership and choices, something we value greatly in this country.

It's no wonder that GOPers are big-time capitalists. They have a flawed ideology to go along with the flawed economic system!

- Motown Bronco - 11-07-2003 07:55 AM

Klutz, just to clarify, I was agreeing with you (about how Republicans tend to interfere in social issues), not with the idea that the GOP should control social issues.

I have to run off to work, so I don't have time now to share why I believe the free-market system is light years better than corporate welfare and centralized planning. But I'll come back sometime later to elaborate.
:D

- DrTorch - 11-07-2003 10:23 AM

BTTT,

I don't know if we really need a "soda tax". How about just reducing subsidies to sugar cane growers? Thus, the market raises prices, and the government can spend the money it currently has, more wisely.

Also, what about the left-leaning folks who lobbied that soda purchases should be allowed for WIC and food stamp programs? I thought these programs were supposed to help people who were on hard times.

The Onion article is funny, because it points out the consistent hypocrisy and inconsistency of those who advocate so many laws. For all his faults, I don't see Ashcroft in this group.

- joebordenrebel - 11-07-2003 05:50 PM

Motown Bronco Wrote:Klutz, just to clarify, I was agreeing with you (about how Republicans tend to interfere in social issues), not with the idea that the GOP should control social issues.

I have to run off to work, so I don't have time now to share why I believe the free-market system is light years better than corporate welfare and centralized planning. But I'll come back sometime later to elaborate.
:D

Ummm, don't you mean laissez-faire economics is better than the welfare system (you know, with the old Reagan myth of the Cadillac-driving African-American woman buying beer with food stamps), not corporate welfare?

Trust me--the so-called "free marketers" are all about corporate welfare!

- Motown Bronco - 11-08-2003 10:34 AM

joebordenrebel Wrote:Trust me--the so-called "free marketers" are all about corporate welfare!

Then they are not true free-marketers then.

Did you know that in the late 1990s, politicians gave McDonalds $1.6 million to help it advertise Big Macs in Europe (in the name of "promoting" American products)?

It's not just McDonalds. IBM, Campbell's Soup, GE, California Raisin Board, and many others also received a helping of taxpayers money for one reason or another. Any public funding of corporations (be it via federal business handouts, subsidies, bailout funds, etc) at the expense of working people is corporate welfare. Sure, many who champion themselves as so-called "free market proponents" will support these expenditures. But then again, I'm sure you've noticed many politicians who don't adhere to certain ideals, even though they wave its banner.

- Motown Bronco - 11-08-2003 10:56 AM

KlutzDio I Wrote:If you really think about it, capitalism is a flawed economic system. The capitalist wants to make more, control more and put the smaller competition out of business. The call it survival of the fittest (business). But the whole system collapses upon itself at that point. Say business X sells a certain kind of washer that all manufactured products must have to operate. Business Y sells a similar washer but they aren't as big and don't have as much financial backing as does business X. Business X makes Y an offer they can't refuse, or simply take them over hostily. After that X takes up all the smaller businesses that buy the washers from them and sell the manufactured products. Soon, over years and years, business X owns a little bit of everything and they can set the value of their goods and services. At this point the system has broken down because business X is a monopoly and they own everything. At that point capitalism ceases to provide private, free ownership and choices, something we value greatly in this country.

In general, I'm not opposed to natural monopolies. I am opposed to monopolies maintained by government force and fiat. To maintain this type of monopoly requires the aid and abetting of the state.

In your example, Business X evidently makes washers efficiently and keeps its costs down. Meanwhile, Business Y evidently makes washers inefficiently and is watered down in overhead costs and little revenue (or, as you said, "without much financial backing"). Free-market economics dictates that if Y can't compete or improve its processes, they will succumb to the much more efficient X. If X is the only business left standing selling washers, and maintains its efficiency & quality while keeping prices at a level that meets consumer demand, it's a winning situation. If X raises its prices beyond a market point and/or begins to "slack off" on its quality, then Businesses Z, P, and Q are waiting in the wings to join the party and make X pay. The free market exchange is in place.

In a collectivist society, government extracts public funds from workers' paychecks to prop up the inefficient and shoddy Business Y in an ill-advised attempt to keep unemployment down (which doesn't work, but that's a whole 'nother story). At this point, Business Y certainly doesn't have the motivation to improve if they are receiving sweetheart funding from the state to stay in business. Results: Worker malaise, poor quality, high prices, long lines at the supermarket. This is one of the key contributors to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. They taxed the public so much to protect disfunctional corporations that it went beyond the breaking point.

A systematic prevention of free exchange can only be carried out by governments, since only those individuals claim a monopoly on force.

- KlutzDio I - 11-08-2003 09:52 PM

Motown Bronco Wrote:In general, I'm not opposed to natural monopolies. I am opposed to monopolies maintained by government force and fiat. To maintain this type of monopoly requires the aid and abetting of the state.

In your example, Business X evidently makes washers efficiently and keeps its costs down. Meanwhile, Business Y evidently makes washers inefficiently and is watered down in overhead costs and little revenue (or, as you said, "without much financial backing"). Free-market economics dictates that if Y can't compete or improve its processes, they will succumb to the much more efficient X. If X is the only business left standing selling washers, and maintains its efficiency & quality while keeping prices at a level that meets consumer demand, it's a winning situation. If X raises its prices beyond a market point and/or begins to "slack off" on its quality, then Businesses Z, P, and Q are waiting in the wings to join the party and make X pay. The free market exchange is in place.

In a collectivist society, government extracts public funds from workers' paychecks to prop up the inefficient and shoddy Business Y in an ill-advised attempt to keep unemployment down (which doesn't work, but that's a whole 'nother story). At this point, Business Y certainly doesn't have the motivation to improve if they are receiving sweetheart funding from the state to stay in business. Results: Worker malaise, poor quality, high prices, long lines at the supermarket. This is one of the key contributors to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. They taxed the public so much to protect disfunctional corporations that it went beyond the breaking point.

A systematic prevention of free exchange can only be carried out by governments, since only those individuals claim a monopoly on force.

I agree with you about gov. force propping up businesses, of which a recent example would be the airline industry post 9/11.

I have a relative in retail, he suffered after 9/11. Suffered so bad, he had his first ever "sale" to bring in customers. He took a hit as did his partners. The gov. didn't prop them up. I guess they weren't worthy enough.

I also agree with your previous post about how politicos wave a certain banner, and then go to bed with business, violating their banner. That sucks!

In your example you gave me you said: " If X raises its prices beyond a market point and/or begins to "slack off" on its quality, then Businesses Z, P, and Q are waiting in the wings to join the party and make X pay. The free market exchange is in place. "

In all reality, business X could be so powerful and manipulative at this point that they could raise the price of their washers because they are a monopoly, all other industries must buy these necessary washers from X. As soon as the shareholders of X see Z, P, and Q waiting in the wings, what is stopping X from offering them money to not compete? What is stopping X from a merger with the businesses waiting in the wings? What is stopping X from a hostile takeover?

There's concrete examples of my vague, macro scenario. One such example would be a cable company in a locality. Let's say Time Warner Cable. They offer a product that is completely overpriced. Since they have control of the market they can do that and they do. Then comes Direct TV and Primestar and whoever else has the little satellite dishes and starts offering more channels, better service, for a similar rate. Time Warner sees what's going on and then they force Primestar out of the market and bolster Direct TV because they are on the verge of flopping out altogether. At this point, TW has a stake in Direct and customer A is buying cable from Direct because he hates TW but in the long run, a portion of the bill customer A is paying is really going to TW.
Another big example is the software, hardware computer industry. Big Bill Gates is buying up the competition as soon as they come out with a competitive product. What is stopping him from doing this?
Clearchannel could be another example but I'm not too familiar with radio and FCC law.s
I heard recently an expose on C-SPAN about this very scenario taking place among healthcare manufacturers

- KlutzDio I - 11-08-2003 09:53 PM

Motown Bronco Wrote:In general, I'm not opposed to natural monopolies. I am opposed to monopolies maintained by government force and fiat. To maintain this type of monopoly requires the aid and abetting of the state.

In your example, Business X evidently makes washers efficiently and keeps its costs down. Meanwhile, Business Y evidently makes washers inefficiently and is watered down in overhead costs and little revenue (or, as you said, "without much financial backing"). Free-market economics dictates that if Y can't compete or improve its processes, they will succumb to the much more efficient X. If X is the only business left standing selling washers, and maintains its efficiency & quality while keeping prices at a level that meets consumer demand, it's a winning situation. If X raises its prices beyond a market point and/or begins to "slack off" on its quality, then Businesses Z, P, and Q are waiting in the wings to join the party and make X pay. The free market exchange is in place.

In a collectivist society, government extracts public funds from workers' paychecks to prop up the inefficient and shoddy Business Y in an ill-advised attempt to keep unemployment down (which doesn't work, but that's a whole 'nother story). At this point, Business Y certainly doesn't have the motivation to improve if they are receiving sweetheart funding from the state to stay in business. Results: Worker malaise, poor quality, high prices, long lines at the supermarket. This is one of the key contributors to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. They taxed the public so much to protect disfunctional corporations that it went beyond the breaking point.

A systematic prevention of free exchange can only be carried out by governments, since only those individuals claim a monopoly on force.

- Motown Bronco - 11-09-2003 01:19 AM

Klutz,

Thanks for your well thought-out response.

Quote:Eventually, one business will get so strong and diverse they will chew up the rest of the competition and the consumer will have no choice but to trade with the behemoths.

The assertion that free markets automatically lead to monopoly is an incorrect assumption. If the market is allowed to work freely over time, an apparent "monopolist" will soon realize that it indeed has competition. A company operating in a market economy looks like a monopoly only under myopic static analysis. A broader look at any industry will show that there is plenty of competition, just as narrow enough scrutiny will show that any brand name product has some monopoly characteristics, such as a popular brand of ice cream.

I

- KlutzDio I - 11-09-2003 04:06 PM

You said: "But let

- Motown Bronco - 11-09-2003 09:11 PM

Wow, you covered a lot of ground there. 03-wink

To be honest, if I wanted to respond to all of issues covered, I'll probably be here until Monday morning.

But here are my quickie thoughts:

* I also detest sweatshops that use force or threats to achieve quotas (i.e. forcing women to run loops around the building if one of them misses quota), and this does happen. Absent of this sort of wickedness and coersion, if the multinational is paying a wage comparable to the rest of the local market, and the employees are there on their own volition, an overseas production factory is simply a component of comparative advantage and should be allowed to exist.
* Don't forget that many foreign companies are coming here too. It's not just a one-way street. In the auto sector alone, there's a Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama, BMW plant in South Carolina, Mazda plant in Michigan... these result in a slew of jobs.
* For education to improve, there's got to be more of a parental choice in education providers and accountability, including the option of homeschooling. That's a whole 'nother topic though.
* Taxes for services that everyone uses and would be near-impossible to privatize - police, fire, snow removal, defense, road maintenance, etc - are fine.
* I didn't favor the Iraq war. However, your assertion that we bomb people merely because they don't "look like us" seems rhetorical and over-the-top.
* "Useless crap". Useless crap to you may be someone else's enjoyment. There is no such thing as cultural imperialism, no matter how many on the Left insist there is. Everything is demand driven. The French don't like McDonald's? Then don't frequent the restaurant, and the burger chain will be gone in a heartbeat.
* Mega-millionnaires also employ millions of people, as Bill Gates does. Gates also donates millions to charities each year.
* I don't like snobbish behavior and social maneuvering either. But I can't agree with placing "caps" on how much someone can earn. If millions of people were willing to pay a lot of money to see Michael Jordan play basketball for entertainment, Michael Jordan deserves his rewards, however "obscenely high" the paychecks may be.
* Ethics: The government has been found "cooking the accounting books" throughout history far more than corporations.

Quote:I've got off my point because you are out of my league.

I disagree. You make good points (even though I may disagree with most) and back it up with examples. I think you bring about good discussion without resorting to personal insults ... something not seen too often on a message board.

You were somewhat close on my profession. Since you asked, I'm in marketing research for the automotive industry. As for Economics, it was my minor at WMU. And I also went into International Business in grad school. I also co-founded and contribute to a web log ("blog") on libertarian-leaning principles and economics at <a href='http://www.catallarchy.net/blog/' target='_blank'>Catallarchy</a>. But I'm generally more interested in things like football, music, and movies. :D

I'm not rich, nor poor. Firmly entrenched in the middle class.

Are you a Humanities professor?

Your last sentence read:

Quote:Business sets how we live our lives so there's got to be some kind of link between economics and morality.

I disagree with the first part of your sentence. How we live our lives affects business. I think this exemplifies our differences with regard to how we view economics and society.

We don't like New Coke. Result: Gone.
We like roomier vehicles. Result: More SUVs. (sidebar: I dislike SUVs, but won't prohibit others from buying them)
We complain about fast-food health. Result: Chains introduce salads and "lo-cal" menus.
We watch reality shows (unfortunately). Result: More reality shows appear.
We'll get tired of reality shows. Result: You'll see far less of them in a couple years.
We're getting less uptight talking about sexual issues. Result: Howard Stern and other shock jocks get more popular.
We want fast and easy communication. Result: Cell phones and the Internet.

Demand dictates supply. Consumers dictate business by "voting" with dollars.

- Motown Bronco - 11-09-2003 09:23 PM

BTW...

Here's a small example from several months ago of how free-trade and enterprise met on an Indian Ocean island-nation. Paralleling your interest in humanities and ethics, I believe this entrepreneurship has helped the people of Zanzibar in many ways.

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3141157.stm' target='_blank'>Zanzibar</a>

> "The mobile phone has also generated new business ventures. On the east coast of the island young boys turn a profit by renting out their phones to tourists who want to call home, offering significantly better rates than those offered by the international hotels."